Krist: Here's an idea: Let the farmers run their farms

In an otherwise dry recitation of technical disagreements over water rates, it was dismaying to read a statement by Ventura Water's general manager opening a new front in the current dispute among urban agencies, the United Water Conservation District and agricultural customers over groundwater pumping charges.

Noting that farmers on the Oxnard Plain have gradually been shifting over the years to more water-intensive crops, Shana Epstein suggested that they should be forced to pay higher water rates so they'll stop doing that.

"You use price as a way to promote conservation," Epstein said. The rate structure "doesn't encourage them to use less and less water."

The litigation between Ventura and the United Water Conservation District — a case that Farm Bureau of Ventura County and the California Farm Bureau Federation have joined to defend the interests of farmers — revolves around differing interpretations of laws governing the way groundwater pumping charges are set.

The city feels it is paying too much, and it wants to shift a significant share of its financial burden to farmers, whom the city accuses of paying too little.

We happen to disagree, strongly, but that's what courts are for. A judge will listen to the dueling legal arguments and decide which interpretation of the statutes is correct.

But judging by Ms. Epstein's remarks, it is now also the official position of the city of Ventura that farmers should be forced to pay more for water as a way of manipulating their choices about what to grow and how to grow it.

Let's leave aside, for now, the fact that the city lacks a department of agronomy or agricultural economics, and therefore also lacks the expertise to offer a credible opinion on crop selection and production techniques.

And let's also leave aside the fact that farmers already consider myriad economic factors — land prices, fuel and energy costs, labor availability, market volatility, interest rates, weather patterns, global competition, pest pressure, regulatory trends and, yes, water costs — when deciding what they can afford to grow if they want to make a profit.

Instead, let's keep it simple.

If Ventura is like the rest of Southern California, half the potable water it delivers to its residents is used to irrigate outdoor landscaping, mainly lawns. Nearly every drop of untreated water delivered to farmers, on the other hand, produces an economically valuable product, mainly food.

So here's a proposal.

When Ventura quits turning city parks into soggy swamps, prevents suburban sprinkler heads from watering streets and sidewalks, and sends its residents a "price signal" that forces them to stop pouring drinking water on vegetation better suited to northern England than to the Southern California desert, farmers will be happy to listen to the city's suggestions about how to run their farms.

Until then, let's just focus on legal arguments about rate structures and proportional benefit.